obama supportts dna sampling upon arrest

[blu]

I don't feel that my privacy was invaded any more than when my fingerprints were taken.


BTW...we've had two horrific kidnapping/rape/murders here in the San Diego area in the last year...they FINALLY caught the guy based on DNA dead to rights on one case, and that seems to have led to FINALLY finding the body of the second poor girl. I'm not really feeling like it's a problem.

Of course you don't. I don't have a problem with it being used for good. I DO have a problem with it being misused. And our government misuses any and everything it gets its hands on.

Well, it has been known to misuse the Military, hasn't it?

wow I never thought i would see such a fallacy from you

 

[rightwinger]

The criminals already win because they have more rights than their victims. Get a clue, huh?

And denying criminal investigators access to a DNA database gives a criminal more rights. DNA databases have proven to be essential in capturing criminals in long forgotten cases. They have also been used to get innocent people released.
You get arrested for drunk driving and they do a DNA swab on you as well as a mug shot and fingerprints. If it turns out that your DNA was involved in a rape four years ago...I call that good police work and am glad you are off the streets

How many rights are you willing to give up in this private little world of yours where the nanny state protects you?

Your premise is fallacious. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty -- a basic Right in the US Constitution?

I wasn't convicted nor arrested for anything. I was a member of the US military.

Explain away ....

I also have a security clearance and my fingerprints are on file. I really don't care

Once you are arrested you give up certain rights. Police have an obligation to investigate you. In the past this investigation has been based on name, SSN, mug shot, tattoos, fingerprints...all which have been used to link people who have been arrested to other crimes. DNA is just another tool and a powerful weapon against crime.

You can eventually be found not guilty of the original offence you were arrested for. But the courts have long upheld the investigation conducted once you are arrested as a legal, Constitutional investigation.

 

[Xenophon]

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security....Benjamin Franklin

 

[RodISHI]

On arrests?? That's a bit overboard... upon convictions, I would support that

I would be more incline to agree with this but only with a court hearing first. If anyone has ever been under false arrest for minor bullshit charges that were false to begin with they would understand this is too much control. I would not even mind giving DNA if it is always guaranteed to be held strictly for investigative purposes into a major crime. Anything else is absurd. Our government has allowed unethical corporates way to much in the way of intrusions into our lives already with their so called "herd" management procedures.

 

[RodISHI]

And denying criminal investigators access to a DNA database gives a criminal more rights. DNA databases have proven to be essential in capturing criminals in long forgotten cases. They have also been used to get innocent people released.
You get arrested for drunk driving and they do a DNA swab on you as well as a mug shot and fingerprints. If it turns out that your DNA was involved in a rape four years ago...I call that good police work and am glad you are off the streets

How many rights are you willing to give up in this private little world of yours where the nanny state protects you?

Your premise is fallacious. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty -- a basic Right in the US Constitution?

I wasn't convicted nor arrested for anything. I was a member of the US military.

Explain away ....

I also have a security clearance and my fingerprints are on file. I really don't care

Once you are arrested you give up certain rights. Police have an obligation to investigate you. In the past this investigation has been based on name, SSN, mug shot, tattoos, fingerprints...all which have been used to link people who have been arrested to other crimes. DNA is just another tool and a powerful weapon against crime.

You can eventually be found not guilty of the original offence you were arrested for. But the courts have long upheld the investigation conducted once you are arrested as a legal, Constitutional investigation.

It is a damn intrusion. Arrested does not mean an automatically guilty. Utter bullshit!

 

[tigerbob]

On arrests?? That's a bit overboard... upon convictions, I would support that

I would be more incline to agree with this but only with a court hearing first. If anyone has ever been under false arrest for minor bullshit charges that were false to begin with they would understand this is too much control. I would not even mind giving DNA if it is always guaranteed to be held strictly for investigative purposes into a major crime. Anything else is absurd. Our government has allowed unethical corporates way to much in the way of intrusions into our lives already with their so called "herd" management procedures.

Interesting. I agree with DiamondDave, my wife agrees with you (court hearing first)

 

[Dr Gregg]

Here come the conspiracy theories. I think everybody should have fingerprints and DNA on file, how much faster and efficient criminal investigations would be.

But you have the nutjobs that will claim "but they will use your DNA for cloning, expiermnets, other bullshit". But they don't physically have a ton of your DNA stored, they have the profile on file. and nobody is going to do shit with DNA, thats paranoia and conspiracy theory bullshit.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Listening to someone on a sat phone in a cave in Pashtun = Bad Booooshhhhh bad, but let Obama mention it once and we're lining up to hand in our DNA.

Can Obama clone you fucking retards too?

An Army of Fucking Retards voting for Democrats.

Um, you are the blaring retard. stop with this "oh, some people complained when bush did it, that must mean everybody disagreed with it." I've never had a problem with this, its a fingerprint. No rights are being given up.

Yet another pathetic loser partisan hack troll, with nothing of intelligence to say.

Maybe you can explain why you think this is bad like an intelligent person, that act like a retard

 

[rightwinger]

How many rights are you willing to give up in this private little world of yours where the nanny state protects you?

Your premise is fallacious. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty -- a basic Right in the US Constitution?

I wasn't convicted nor arrested for anything. I was a member of the US military.

Explain away ....

I also have a security clearance and my fingerprints are on file. I really don't care

Once you are arrested you give up certain rights. Police have an obligation to investigate you. In the past this investigation has been based on name, SSN, mug shot, tattoos, fingerprints...all which have been used to link people who have been arrested to other crimes. DNA is just another tool and a powerful weapon against crime.

You can eventually be found not guilty of the original offence you were arrested for. But the courts have long upheld the investigation conducted once you are arrested as a legal, Constitutional investigation.

It is a damn intrusion. Arrested does not mean an automatically guilty. Utter bullshit!

Right now, if you get arrested, they can make you strip naked so they can record the fact that you have a pink dragon tattooed on your ass. If it turns out that someone is wanted in another case who has a pink dragon on their ass....you can be charged in the second case too.

Same thing with DNA. If your DNA turns up in another case, you can be charged.

Bad news for criminals

 

[Dr Gregg]

On arrests?? That's a bit overboard... upon convictions, I would support that

That's pretty much where I'm at.

They take mug shots on arrest and fingerprint you. Having a DNA swab is no different. It also provides an opportunity to screen you for involvement in any other unsolved crimes.

Under the fourth amendment it is not an unreasonable search

Plus, they keep a DNA profile, they don't have DNA for "cloning" and other stupid conspiracy theory bullshit.

 

[Dr Gregg]

That's pretty much where I'm at.

They take mug shots on arrest and fingerprint you. Having a DNA swab is no different. It also provides an opportunity to screen you for involvement in any other unsolved crimes.

Under the fourth amendment it is not an unreasonable search

I'm not saying it's not legal, I'm saying I don't entirely agree with it.

I have no problem with DNA being taken from people after conviction. I have somewhat more of an issue with it being taken from people on arrest, unless it is destroyed if that person is not convicted.

We should either be up front about this and take everyone's DNA when, for example, they get a driving license, or only take it from those convicted.

My concern about a 100% DNA database is who has access to it (and, perhaps more pertinently, who has control over it).

The police, for the purposes of comparing DNA found at a crime scene? Fine with that.

The health services, for screening to determine whether someone is at risk of developing a potentially chronic condition? Hmm, maybe, but that's getting dangerously close to.....

The health insurance industry, for screening applicants to determine whether to deny coverage or jack up premiums.

Once Pandora's box is open....

What would access do? Some people can see a DNA gel with multiple bands that are meaningless? It's a fingerprint that is done with enzymes that cut the DNA into fragments and each nperson has a unique presence of particular banding patterns. No information about genes you may have, nothing other than to match current samples with what's in the database.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The criminals already win because they have more rights than their victims. Get a clue, huh?

And denying criminal investigators access to a DNA database gives a criminal more rights. DNA databases have proven to be essential in capturing criminals in long forgotten cases. They have also been used to get innocent people released.
You get arrested for drunk driving and they do a DNA swab on you as well as a mug shot and fingerprints. If it turns out that your DNA was involved in a rape four years ago...I call that good police work and am glad you are off the streets

How many rights are you willing to give up in this private little world of yours where the nanny state protects you?

Your premise is fallacious. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty -- a basic Right in the US Constitution?

I wasn't convicted nor arrested for anything. I was a member of the US military.

Explain away ....

really spot the partisan hacks very very clearly. Still haven't said what rights are being denied? HOw privacy is being invaded. And I bet you supported the patriot act, a real infringement of privacy. Now Obama supports this, you guys go on this privacy kick. rEally really pathetic

 

[Gunny]

Great. I forgot to mention your name on the list of idiots I made this morning. No offense.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Great. I forgot to mention your name on the list of idiots I made this morning. No offense.

as you still add absolutely nothing to support your argument, which is? Oh, just another moron partisan hack rant.

 

[tigerbob]

Here come the conspiracy theories. I think everybody should have fingerprints and DNA on file, how much faster and efficient criminal investigations would be.

But you have the nutjobs that will claim "but they will use your DNA for cloning, expiermnets, other bullshit". But they don't physically have a ton of your DNA stored, they have the profile on file. and nobody is going to do shit with DNA, thats paranoia and conspiracy theory bullshit.

There are plenty of rational arguments on both sides, but your perspective (which roughly translates as "people never have their personal information used for any purpose other than that for which it was intended, so there are no potential issues with this") is neither rational nor is it an argument.

At least make an attempt to demonstrate why you are confident that the database will be secure and not open to misuse. Relying on a "you're all crazy and I'm the only one talking sense" approach hardly makes a compelling case.

 

[tigerbob]

They take mug shots on arrest and fingerprint you. Having a DNA swab is no different. It also provides an opportunity to screen you for involvement in any other unsolved crimes.

Under the fourth amendment it is not an unreasonable search

I'm not saying it's not legal, I'm saying I don't entirely agree with it.

I have no problem with DNA being taken from people after conviction. I have somewhat more of an issue with it being taken from people on arrest, unless it is destroyed if that person is not convicted.

We should either be up front about this and take everyone's DNA when, for example, they get a driving license, or only take it from those convicted.

My concern about a 100% DNA database is who has access to it (and, perhaps more pertinently, who has control over it).

The police, for the purposes of comparing DNA found at a crime scene? Fine with that.

The health services, for screening to determine whether someone is at risk of developing a potentially chronic condition? Hmm, maybe, but that's getting dangerously close to.....

The health insurance industry, for screening applicants to determine whether to deny coverage or jack up premiums.

Once Pandora's box is open....

What would access do? Some people can see a DNA gel with multiple bands that are meaningless? It's a fingerprint that is done with enzymes that cut the DNA into fragments and each nperson has a unique presence of particular banding patterns. No information about genes you may have, nothing other than to match current samples with what's in the database.

That's more like it.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Here come the conspiracy theories. I think everybody should have fingerprints and DNA on file, how much faster and efficient criminal investigations would be.

But you have the nutjobs that will claim "but they will use your DNA for cloning, expiermnets, other bullshit". But they don't physically have a ton of your DNA stored, they have the profile on file. and nobody is going to do shit with DNA, thats paranoia and conspiracy theory bullshit.

There are plenty of rational arguments on both sides, but your perspective (which roughly translates as "people never have their personal information used for any purpose other than that for which it was intended, so there are no potential issues with this") is neither rational nor is it an argument.

At least make an attempt to demonstrate why you are confident that the database will be secure and not open to misuse. Relying on a "you're all crazy and I'm the only one talking sense" approach hardly makes a compelling case.

You apparently know nothing about genetics, and nothing about DNA testing. NObody here against this has given one legitimate, rational reason how the gov't can misuse this. Most are "they will clone you, this is invasion of privacy" with no explanation how it is. The DNA can't be used as I"ve mentioned, and you say I'm not logical? Yet another USMB moron that doesn't know what an intelligent argument is

 

[RodISHI]

I also have a security clearance and my fingerprints are on file. I really don't care

Once you are arrested you give up certain rights. Police have an obligation to investigate you. In the past this investigation has been based on name, SSN, mug shot, tattoos, fingerprints...all which have been used to link people who have been arrested to other crimes. DNA is just another tool and a powerful weapon against crime.

You can eventually be found not guilty of the original offence you were arrested for. But the courts have long upheld the investigation conducted once you are arrested as a legal, Constitutional investigation.

It is a damn intrusion. Arrested does not mean an automatically guilty. Utter bullshit!

Right now, if you get arrested, they can make you strip naked so they can record the fact that you have a pink dragon tattooed on your ass. If it turns out that someone is wanted in another case who has a pink dragon on their ass....you can be charged in the second case too.

Same thing with DNA. If your DNA turns up in another case, you can be charged.

Bad news for criminals

I don't have any tattoos and if by chance I was arrested or charged under false pretenses and stripped and searched they better be damn sure they have a good valid reason to do such. Your saying bad for criminals as if it is only criminals who are placed under arrest. Since I know for a fact that certain people in positions to do so have had people arrested based on false charges I do not agree with your precepts. When I was younger I particularly did like being questioned by certain authorities to be later asked if I would go out with them either. Not all do these things but some do and it is called abuse of authority.

 

[Gunny]

Great. I forgot to mention your name on the list of idiots I made this morning. No offense.

as you still add absolutely nothing to support your argument, which is? Oh, just another moron partisan hack rant.

Nah. Why waste my time with a hack rant when I can just read YOURS?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Great. I forgot to mention your name on the list of idiots I made this morning. No offense.

as you still add absolutely nothing to support your argument, which is? Oh, just another moron partisan hack rant.

Nah. Why waste my time with a hack rant when I can just read YOURS?

Translation: I'm an idiot that can't argue intelligently. It's clear to anybody with intelligence who the hack is here